Haudensaunee Deer Hunting in Dundas Valley – a “Treaty Right” Or a Fraud?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Part 1 Haudensaunee deer hunting in Dundas Valley – a “treaty right” or a fraud? “Nanfan Treaty” is a hoax. It is not a “treaty.” It is a fraudalent interpretation of historical facts and a legally invalid claim of “treaty rights.” Nanfan Treaty does not exist. Historically, the deed of land to the English King, made by the Five Nations’ sachems in Albany on 19 July 1701, was never intended, recognized or confirmed by the Crown as a valid treaty. 1 Nanfan “Treaty” was a one-sided narrative, a one-sided deed of land with a wishlist attached to it – (an expectation to hunt in the area in question), made unilaterally by the native sachems who signed the document. This point is clearly demonstrated by the actual text of this document. In May 1784 – (83 years after the “Nanfan Treaty”) – a tract of land along the Grand River valley, being part of the lands “deeded” to the Crown in the “Nanfan Treaty”, was purchased from the Mississaugas, on behalf of the Crown, by the Governor of the Province of Quebec Frederick Haldimand. In October 1784, Haldimand granted this land to the Iroquois who had served on the British side during the American Revolution. If the Crown believed that the land was earlier “deeded”, it would not have to purchase it from the Mississaugas. During the Conference in Albany (12-19 July, 1701), that produced the so called “ Nanfan Treaty “, several speeches were made by the native leaders and by Governor Nanfan. Nanfan mainly talked about “protection” from the French and from the tribes allied with the French. He was concerned with the negotiations between the Five Nations and the French. He was 2 concerned with the prospect of French Jesuits living and working among the Five Nations. He was pitching the Five Nations against the French. Neither in Nanfan’s speeches nor in the final document, there was a promise or a commitment, expressed or implied on behalf of the Crown or by the representatives of the Crown, confirming the recognition of or support for any hunting rights in the deeded lands. During the same meetings, the Five Nations’ sachems specifically insisted that Gov. Nanfan sends the Indian Secretary Robert Livingston to England in order to deliver the deed to H.M. King William III personally, as this would, they hoped, speed up the King’s reply and acceptance. Moreover, in the document itself, the Five Nations sachems expressed their claim to hunt in the deeded land as an “expectation” – (not a done deal): “…and it is hereby expected that wee are to have free hunting for us and the heirs and descendants from us and the Five nations for ever…” and expressed the hope that King William III would accept their expectations: “…we the Sachims of the Five nations above mentioned in behalf of ourselves and the Five nations have signed and sealed this present Instrument and delivered the same as an act and deed to the Hon. John Nanfan Esq Lieut Gov to our Great King in this province whom we call Corlaer in the presence of all the Magistrates officers and other inhabitants of Albany praying our brother Corlaer to send it over to Carachkoo our dread souveraigne Lord and that He would be graciously pleased to accept of the same . Actum in Albany in the middle of the high street this nineteenth day of July in the thirteenth year of His Majesty’s reign Annoque Domini 1701.” [Where: Corlaer = Lt. Governor John Nanfan, Carachkoo = H.M. King William III] In the article, “ Natives do pay Canadian taxes “, published in Brantford Expositor on March 7, 2008, Chief William K. Montour of the Six Nations of the Grand River argued that the Haldimand’s Declaration was a “treaty.” He wrote: “…the Supreme Court of Canada determined in R v. Sioui, 1990 , that a treaty is constituted by any signed statement by a Crown trustee agreeing to certain promises to aboriginal peoples.” 3 In the “Nanfan Deed” of 1701, there are no “statements by a Crown trustee agreeing to any promises” in general or to the hunting rights in particular. All statements in this document are made by the Five Nations sachems. The deed was later confirmed by the Five Nations sachems in Albany on September 14, 1726, again with no written commitment on the part of the Crown regarding the “expected” hunting rights. Just like in 1701, the King’s reply never came and no legislature has ever ratified this document or approved these “expectations” on behalf of the Crown. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the document, as signed in Albany on 19 July 1701, is not a “treaty”. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York – ( Online Electronic Book, pg. 908 -911) provide a full text of this document, here named, “Deed from the Five Nations to the King of their Beaver Hunting Ground”. According to this transcript, after the main text and the signatures (totems) of the Five Nations’ sachems, there is a phrase: “Sealed and delivered in the presence of us” , followed by a list (no signatures) of the colonial participants present at that meeting, followed by the words: “This is a true copy” and the signature of John Nanfan. British History Online, America and West Indies, August 1701 , See sections 758.viii-ix. (From: ‘America and West Indies: August 1701, 16-20′, Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 19: 1701 (1910), pp. 415-459.) This transcript is an abbreviated and edited version of the original document. It is called: “Instrument of Conveyance of a Tract of Land from the Five Nations to H.M.” This transcript places the names of the colonial participants present at the meeting, the “Sealed and delivered in the presence of us” phrase, the “A true copy” phrase, and the signature of John Nanfan on the back (the reverse) of the document. 4 Another transcript of this document - (from Iroquois Indians: A Documentary History, pgs. 908-911, Reel 6, Newberry Library). Here, the document is also titled: “Deed from the Five Nations to the King of their Beaver Hunting Ground.” This is the same text as found in the Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, listed above. The use of phrases: “Sealed and delivered in the presence of us” and “This is a true copy” clearly mean that: The colonial participants listed on the reverse of this document were merely witnesses to the deed, not a party to any agreement; Nanfan has signed this document on the reverse to confirm its authenticity and receipt; Nanfan has signed the document after it was completed, sealed and delivered. By no means does it prove that this document constitutes an agreement or a “treaty” between the Five (later Six) Nations and the Crown. Tom Kennedy of St. Catherines, a member of the Ontario Historical Society, St. Catherines Historical Society, the Ontario Genealogical Society, and McMaster ’50, has done an extensive research focusing on the so called “Nanfan Treaty.” In his recent publications, he wrote: The Nanfan Treaty of 1701 came into my focus with the trial and decision of the case of R. v. Ireland and Jamieson in 1990 . The learned Judge accepted, it appears, the existence of a ceding of land in 1701, of what is southern Ontario west, as a “Treaty” with the English Crown. The evidence presented at trial was stated as “ Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York .” Consequently, the “treaty rights”, claimed by the Haudenosaunnee, were recognized by the Ontario Government and the Hamilton Conservation Authority, as we were told, was obliged to follow the lead. Kennedy continues: The learned Justice also stated that the ‘Treaty’ had been signed by Lt. Gov. John Nanfan and Indian Sec’y Robert Livingston – this is contradicted by the actual evidence. I searched our Federal and early French Treaties and could not find the “Nanfan Treaty”. My local MP’s office also searched – could not find it. I contacted our American “cousins” in Albany for their colonial records, they referred me to the National Archives in Kew, Surrey, England. They do have the original document – “Conveyance of lands by the Native American Chiefs of the Five Nations – [The Albany Deed of 1701]” , catalogue 5 number CO 5/1046/758. I could not discern the additional signatures of John Nanfan or Robert Livingston to that document. This is a copy of the original document, “Conveyance of lands by the Native American Chiefs of the Five Nations – [The Albany Deed of 1701]”, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England, Reference: CO 5/1046/758. — (See: NOTE , below.) The “deed” itself was a fraud, as the lands deeded to the Crown were no longer controlled or occupied by the Five (later Six) Nations at the time of signing of this document. Tom Kennedy asserts: The Four Directions Institute in the USA, in their time line of the Five/Six Nations, notes they abandoned our Ontario in 1696, driven out by the French and Ojibwa. 6 – (This is five years before the Nanfan Deed was signed in 1701.) “The ”Conveyance…” ignores that the French and Ojibway Allies booted them out in 1696, never to return until Haldimand invited them back in 1784, and had to ask the Mississauga, from whom he had purchased the land between the Niagara River over to the Thames River, to permit the Six Nations to come back into the land they had been evicted from in 1696. According to Gary Horsnell – In the mid-1600s, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois from what is now upper New York State, U.S.A.